Delhi High Court
Himani Malhotra vs Ip College For Women on 24 May, 2016
$~8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4679/2016
HIMANI MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate with
Mr. Mayank Sharma and Mr. Anshal Kulshrestha,
Advocates
versus
IP COLLEGE FOR WOMEN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 24.05.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuing a writ of mandamus, directing that the three CD's with the
certificate of the petitioner under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 be
sealed by the learned Inquiry Officer and sent to the FSL, Rohini, with
further directions to the two employees of the respondent/College to give
their voice samples to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi for comparison and scientific
analysis. The second relief prayed for by the petitioner is for issuing
directions to the Director, FSL, Rohini, to submit the report after testing and
analysis of the voice recordings in a sealed cover to the Inquiry Officer. In
the alternative, the petitioner seeks directions to the Inquiry Officer to
consider the application dated 06.05.2015, filed by her and pending orders.
2. Mr. G. Tushar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
is the second round of litigation that the petitioner has had to initiate during
the pendency of the enquiry proceedings being conducted against her by the
respondent/College. He submits that prior hereto, aggrieved by the order
dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Inquiry Officer, whereunder the petitioner's
application for seeking permission to file CDs of voice recordings done on
21.03.2012 and 21.04.2012, allegedly recording the conversion between Dr.
Seema Singh, the petitioner, the Principal of the College and the students,
was dismissed. However, vide orders dated 18.01.2016 and 24.02.2016
passed in W.P.(C) 1101/2016, the order dated 18.1.2016 was set aside and
the petitioner was directed to furnish a certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 within one week which the Inquiry Officer was
directed to consider in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the
Inquiry Officer had recorded in the proceedings held on 04.04.2016 as
follows:-
"During the course of the hearing of this application both the parties
agreed that the said application on its merit can be decided by the
Inquiry Officer at the stage of final decision of the inquiry and
pending its decision, direction can be given to get the voices of the
said two employees of the I.P. College recorded. To facilitate this
process, the parties have also agreed to ascertain and find out any
independent agency to record the voice samples of the said
employees. The matter is accordingly adjourned for this purpose on
22 April 2016 at 04:00 p.m."
4. On the next date fixed before the Inquiry Officer, i.e., on 22.04.2016,
the Management had taken a stand that it was not prepared to get the voice
samples of the two employees recorded from any agency. Taking note of
the said submission, the Inquiry Officer had observed that the said retraction
on the part of the Management would be taken into consideration at the time
of finally deciding the application dated 06.05.2015, filed by the petitioner.
5. The next relevant order referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioner was passed by the learned Inquiry Officer on 06.05.2016, the date
when he had stated that he will produce the mobile phone and laptop as also
the master CD that was prepared from the laptop so that the same could be
sent to the office of the FSL, Rohini for a scientific opinion. Permission, as
prayed for, was granted by the learned Inquiry Officer and the proceedings
were adjourned to 13.05.2016. On 13.05.2016, counsel for the petitioner had
stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner was unable to trace the
original mobile phone and was therefore not in a position to produce the
same.
6. Learned counsel states that he did produce the laptop and the master
CD before the Inquiry Officer on 6.5.2016. He had also sought time to file
an application for seeking leave to place on record the secondary evidence
for the purpose of seeking an opinion of the FSL, in respect of the voices
recorded by the petitioner in the CDs. Learned counsel had further sought
time to verify as to whether the master CD contains any other recording,
apart from the one placed on record.
7. In view of the said submission, the Inquiry Officer had directed the
petitioner to file an application on the lines noted above, on or before
27.05.2016 and the proceedings were adjourned to 12.07.2016.
8. Now the present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating inter
alia that the Inquiry Officer be directed to consider her pending application
dated 06.05.2015 in the changed circumstances, where the Management has
refused to get the voice samples of the two employees recorded from any
agency.
9. If that be the case, then it is for the petitioner to make such a request
directly to the Inquiry Officer, instead of approaching the court for any
orders.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the
petitioner to approach learned Inquiry Officer with a request to take up and
decide her pending application dated 6.5.2015, before proceeding any
further. If such a request is made, the same shall be considered and decided
by the learned Inquiry Officer, as per law.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 24, 2016
rkb/mk
